GENERAL INDUSTRIAL CONTROS LTD.,PUNE vs. DCIT CIRCLE 8, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the order of the CIT(A) is set aside, and the appeal of the assessee is partly allowed

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamore

depreciation allowance in respect of a block of asset which has not been given full effect to prior to the assessment year beginning on the 1st day of April, 2020, corresponding adjustment shall be made to the written down value of such block of assets as on the 1st day of April, 2019 in the prescribed manner, if the option

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, SATARA vs. THE KARAD URBAN CO. OP. BANK LTD KARAD, KARAD

In the result, the appeal of the Revenue is dismissed

Bench: Shri R.K. Panda & Ms. Astha Chandra

depreciation be allowed as expenditure while computing taxable income, clearly amounts to an attempt to interpret/challenge by the appellant-department to the said instruction which has been issued by the CBDT u/s 119(2)(a) of the Act. III.I with due respect & utmost humbleness, please allow us to place on record that CBDT instructions are totally binding upon every Revenue

GURU KRIPA SEVA ASHYRAM,PUNE vs. INCOME-TAX OFFICER, EXEMPTION, WARD 1(2), PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2014-15

section 139 of the Act is condoned. (ii) In all other cases of belated applications in filing Form no. 10B for years prior to AY 2018-19, the Commissioners of Income-tax are authorized to admit such applications for condonation of delay u/s 119(2)(b) of the Act. The Commissioners will while entertaining such belated applications in filing Form

GRANT MEDICAL FOUNDATION,PUNE vs. INCOME TAX OFFICE, EXEMPTION CIRCLE, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee is dismissed

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Ms Astha Chandraassessment Year : 2018-19

depreciation of Rs.33,00,69,972/-. However, since after making the above additions and after allowing the accumulation u/s 11(1)(a) of the Act to the extent of 15% of gross receipts at Rs.73,63,65,615/-, the net surplus was Nil for which the Assessing Officer determined the taxable income at Nil. 3. Thereafter, the Ld. CIT(Exemption

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIAL LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

JOINT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, (OSD), CIRCLE -1,, SOLAPUR vs. M/S. LOKMANGAL AGRO INDUSTRIES LTD,, SOLAPUR

Bench: Shri S.S. Godara & G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation claimed so as to attract section 43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. Yet another decision Sasisri Extraction Ltd., vs., ACIT [2008] 122 ITD 428 (Vizag) also hold that mere credit of the subsidy amount in the assessee’s loan account does not attract sec.43(1) Explanation 10 of the Act. The Revenue fails in its identical former twin

DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -3, NASHIK vs. WINDSOR MACHINES LTD., MUMBAI

In the result, the appeal of Revenue is partly allowed

Bench: Shri S.S. Viswanethra Ravi & Shri G.D. Padmahshali

depreciation for set off in the subsequent years. In view of the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court as referred by the CIT(A) in para 5.4 of the impugned order, we do not find any infirmity in the reasons recorded by the CIT(A) and we agree with the same. Thus, the order of CIT(A) is justified

ROXILER SYSTEMS PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. THE INCOME TAX OFFICER, WARD5(4), PUNE

In the result the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical purpose

Bench: Dr.Dipak P. Ripote & Shri Vinay Bhamoreआयकर अपील सं. / Ita No.2078/Pun/2024 िनधा"रण वष" / Assessment Year: 2022-23 Roxiler Systems Pvt. Ltd., A 508, Kamal Green Leaf, Vs The Income Tax Officer, Khadakwasala, Pune – 411024. Ward-5(4), Pune. Pan: Aahcr8766J Appellant/ Assessee Respondent / Revenue Assessee By : Shri Sharad S. Vaze & Shri Amod S. Vaze – Ar’S Revenue By : Shri Arvind Desai – Add.Cit(Dr) Date Of Hearing: 18/11/2024 Date Of Pronouncement : 30/12/2024 आदेश/ Order Per Dr. Dipak P. Ripote, Am: This Is An Appeal Filed By The Assessee Against The Order Of Ld.Commissioner Of Income Tax(Appeals)Addl./Jcit(A), Mysore For Assessment Year 2022-23Dated 20/08/2024 Passed U/Sec.250 Of The Income Tax Act, 1961, Emanating From An Order U/S 143(1) Of The Act Dated 19/08/2023.The Assessee Has Raised The Following Grounds Of Appeal : “1. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, Rejection Of Claim U/S 80Iac Of The Income Tax Act 1961 (Act) Is Beyond The Powers Of Cpc, Bengaluru In The Powers Of Cps, Bengaluru In Proceedings U/S 143(1) Of The Act. 2. On The Basis Of Facts & In The Circumstances Of The Case & As Per Law, The Commissioner Of Income Tax, (Appeals)-Nfac Delhi Is Not Justified In Rejecting The Claim Of The Assessee U/S 80Iac Of The Act. 3. The Appellant Craves Leave To Add, Alter, Omit Or Substitute Any Of The Grounds At The Time Of Hearing Of The Appeal.”

depreciation. In these circumstances, in the light of the judgment of this 6 Court in the case of Commissioner of Income Tax v. Shivanand Electronics [1994] 209 ITR 63 (Bom.), we see no merit in this appeal. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 2. We concur with the aforesaid view of the High Court

PUSPAK STEEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED,PUNE vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-10, PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the assessee stands partly allowed

depreciation on the car, he submits that no additional ground of appeal was raised before the ld. CIT(A), therefore, it cannot be raised for the first time before the Tribunal. 8. We heard the rival submissions and perused the material on record. The first ground of appeal relates to the disallowance u/s 14A in the absence of any exempt

BANK OF MAHARASHTRA ,PUNE vs. ASST COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE 1(1), PUNE, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

Bench: Shri R. K. Panda & Shri Vinay Bhamoreassessment Year : 2016-17

section 119 of the Act, the CBDT is entitled to issue Circulars to explain or tone down the rigours of law and to ensure fair enforcement of its provisions. These circulars have the force of law and are binding on the income tax authorities, though they cannot be enforced adversely against the assessee. Normally, these circulars cannot be ignored

DY. COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TAX, CIRCLE-1(1), PUNE, PUNE vs. BANK OF MAHARASHTRA, PUNE

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue is partly allowed for statistical purposes and the appeal filed by the assessee is partly allowed for statistical purposes

section 119 of the Act, the CBDT is entitled to issue Circulars to explain or tone down the rigours of law and to ensure fair enforcement of its provisions. These circulars have the force of law and are binding on the income tax authorities, though they cannot be enforced adversely against the assessee. Normally, these circulars cannot be ignored

SHAHU SHIKSHAN PRASARAK MANDAL, LATUR,LATUR vs. ACIT (EXMP.) CIRCLE, AURANGABAD, AURANGABAD

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed for statistical\npurposes

Section 57(iii) does not require this purpose must be fulfilled in\norder to qualify the expenditure for deduction.\n❖ It does not say that, expenditure shall be deductible only, if\nany income is made or earned. There is in fact nothing in the\nlanguage u/s. 57(iii) to suggest that, the purpose for which the\nexpenditure is made should

HOTEL AYODHYA,KOLHAPUR vs. INCOME TAX OFFICER, KOLHAPUR

In the result, the appeal of the assessee is allowed

Bench: SHRI MANISH BORAD (Accountant Member), SHRI S. S. VISWANETHRA RAVI (Judicial Member)

section 72(1) of the Act, the carried forward business loss (which comprises of unabsorbed depreciation) can be carried forward and set off against the profit and gains of any business only and not against income from any other heads. 5.6 The appellant during the AY 2021-22 has derived only "Income from Other Sources” and therefore the brought forward

ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE -11,, PUNE vs. CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LIMITED , (FORMERLY IGATE GLOBAL SOLUTIONS LTD.),, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. It is not a panacea for all the tax related issues of amalgamation, so as to have application insofar as the other tax entitlements, privileges or benefits in the hands of the amalgamating company, are concerned. 14. Section 74 deals

CAPGEMINI TECHNOLOGY SERVICES INDIA LTD,,PUNE vs. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CIRCLE - 11,, PUNE

In the result, both the appeals are partly allowed

Bench: Shri R.S. Syal & Shri Partha Sarathi Chaudhury

depreciation of the amalgamating company in relation to the income under the head “Profit and gains of business or profession”. It is not a panacea for all the tax related issues of amalgamation, so as to have application insofar as the other tax entitlements, privileges or benefits in the hands of the amalgamating company, are concerned. 14. Section 74 deals

SUPERFINE METALS P LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), , PUNE

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 631 To 634/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2010-2011 To 2013-14 Superfine Metals Private Ltd., E29/E39, Supa Midc, Tal. Parner, Ahmednagar – 414302 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aakcs6038H बनाम / V/S. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Central Circle 1(2), Pune द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Bunch Of Five Appeals Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11 [For Short “Cit(A)”] All Dt. 16/11/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Arose Out Of Rectification Orders Dt. 20/02/2021 Passed U/S 154 By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2010-11 To 2013-14. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 12

119(2)(b) of the Act. In the absence any order from the CBDT granting any relaxation to the appellant company, the applications of rectification filed claiming additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act for impugned assessment years, in the light of limitation casted in sub-section

SUPERFINE METALS P LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), , PUNE

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 631 To 634/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2010-2011 To 2013-14 Superfine Metals Private Ltd., E29/E39, Supa Midc, Tal. Parner, Ahmednagar – 414302 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aakcs6038H बनाम / V/S. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Central Circle 1(2), Pune द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Bunch Of Five Appeals Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11 [For Short “Cit(A)”] All Dt. 16/11/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Arose Out Of Rectification Orders Dt. 20/02/2021 Passed U/S 154 By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2010-11 To 2013-14. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 12

119(2)(b) of the Act. In the absence any order from the CBDT granting any relaxation to the appellant company, the applications of rectification filed claiming additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act for impugned assessment years, in the light of limitation casted in sub-section

SUPERFINE METALS P LTD,AHMEDNAGAR vs. ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL CIRCLE 1(2), , PUNE

Bench: Shri S. S. Godara & Shri G. D. Padmahshaliआयकर अपीऱ सं. / Ita Nos. 631 To 634/Pun/2021 निर्धारण वर्ा / Assessment Years : 2010-2011 To 2013-14 Superfine Metals Private Ltd., E29/E39, Supa Midc, Tal. Parner, Ahmednagar – 414302 . . . . . . . अपीऱधर्थी / Appellant Pan:Aakcs6038H बनाम / V/S. Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, . . . . . . . . प्रत्यर्थी / Respondent Central Circle 1(2), Pune द्वारा/ Appearances Assessee By : Shri M. K. Kulkarni Revenue By : Shri M. G. Jasnani सुनवाई की तारीख / Date Of Conclusive Hearing : 28/09/2022 घोषणा की तारीख / Date Of Pronouncement : 07/10/2022 आदेश / Order Per G. D. Padmahshali, Am; Present Bunch Of Five Appeals Of The Assessee Is Assailed Against Separate Orders Of Commissioner Of Income Tax (Appeals), Pune-11 [For Short “Cit(A)”] All Dt. 16/11/2021 Passed U/S 250 Of The Income-Tax Act, 1961 [For Short “The Act”], Which Arose Out Of Rectification Orders Dt. 20/02/2021 Passed U/S 154 By The Asst. Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Circle 1(2), Pune [For Short “Ao”] For Assessment Years [For Short “Ay”] 2010-11 To 2013-14. Itat-Pune Page 1 Of 12

119(2)(b) of the Act. In the absence any order from the CBDT granting any relaxation to the appellant company, the applications of rectification filed claiming additional depreciation u/s 32(1)(iia) of the Act for impugned assessment years, in the light of limitation casted in sub-section

DHAS KISHOR RAMCHANDRA, AURANGABAD vs. DWARKAPRASAD BHIKULAL SONI, JALNA

In the result, the appeal filed by the Revenue stands dismissed

Bench: SHRI R. K. PANDA (Vice President), SHRI VINAY BHAMORE (Judicial Member)

depreciation. Consequently, this element to determine the valuation of the unquoted equity shares is to be considered in a broader way. 5.2.6 Further while determining the deeming income under the Income Tax Act, various concepts are there such as Safe Harbor Rule, Section 50C etc for dealing with the practical difficulties and uncertainties. However, the section 50CA is silent